Date set for demolition of Didcot Power Station towers

THE explosive demolition of Didcot Power Station will begin early in the morning of Sunday, July 27, it has been announced this morning.

Three of the iconic cooling towers will be brought down on that day in under a minute with a controlled explosion.

Npower spokeswoman Kelly Brown said: “This is just the first milestone in the demolition of Didcot A Power Station but will be a significant change to the local landscape. We understand that the power station has been part of the local community for over 42 years and for many people the demolition of these first three cooling towers will mark a significant day for Didcot and Oxfordshire.”

ashleyc wrote:
Going to take a long time to get used to the towers not being around, i'd always used them as a &quot;nearly home" landmark.

LOL. Funny you should say that because that is exactly what most people I know have said. I must admit, it's always nice coming back home and seeing the towers peeping over the horizon. It's almost like they have sentimental value! At the same time, I'm quite looking forward to seeing the demolition. Should be quite a spectacle!

[quote][p][bold]ashleyc[/bold] wrote:
Going to take a long time to get used to the towers not being around, i'd always used them as a "nearly home" landmark.[/p][/quote]LOL. Funny you should say that because that is exactly what most people I know have said. I must admit, it's always nice coming back home and seeing the towers peeping over the horizon. It's almost like they have sentimental value! At the same time, I'm quite looking forward to seeing the demolition. Should be quite a spectacle!tinsel84

ashleyc wrote:
Going to take a long time to get used to the towers not being around, i'd always used them as a &quot;nearly home" landmark.

LOL. Funny you should say that because that is exactly what most people I know have said. I must admit, it's always nice coming back home and seeing the towers peeping over the horizon. It's almost like they have sentimental value! At the same time, I'm quite looking forward to seeing the demolition. Should be quite a spectacle!

I would say you could get Wayne Rooney to hit a button placed inside a goal mouth with a football but there is little chance in that happening in a hurry.

I'll get my coat....

[quote][p][bold]tinsel84[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ashleyc[/bold] wrote:
Going to take a long time to get used to the towers not being around, i'd always used them as a "nearly home" landmark.[/p][/quote]LOL. Funny you should say that because that is exactly what most people I know have said. I must admit, it's always nice coming back home and seeing the towers peeping over the horizon. It's almost like they have sentimental value! At the same time, I'm quite looking forward to seeing the demolition. Should be quite a spectacle![/p][/quote]I would say you could get Wayne Rooney to hit a button placed inside a goal mouth with a football but there is little chance in that happening in a hurry.
I'll get my coat....yabbadabbadoo256

I have lived in and around Oxfordshire for 40 years now and those towers are like a home coming beacon travelling back from any direction. I especially love coming down the M40 from London to see the towers off in the distance and know I am almost there. I know they technically an eyesore but they are part of all of us in the county and will have a slight mope at their demise. Gone but not forgotten.

I have lived in and around Oxfordshire for 40 years now and those towers are like a home coming beacon travelling back from any direction. I especially love coming down the M40 from London to see the towers off in the distance and know I am almost there. I know they technically an eyesore but they are part of all of us in the county and will have a slight mope at their demise. Gone but not forgotten.OxfordRob

This will be a sad day I have grown up with the Power station and have never NOT known it to be there. It was a sad day to come back over the horizon and not see the steam coming from the towers. It will be a greater loss not seeing the towers as I approach the "home stretch".

Once again though, great reporting from the Oxford Mail. Missing that all important piece of information, THE TIME of the actual event.

This will be a sad day I have grown up with the Power station and have never NOT known it to be there. It was a sad day to come back over the horizon and not see the steam coming from the towers. It will be a greater loss not seeing the towers as I approach the "home stretch".
Once again though, great reporting from the Oxford Mail. Missing that all important piece of information, THE TIME of the actual event.Derek_Bradshaw

Hooray. Unlike those who need to have the towers as a guide to their homes (duh? - why not use Wittenham Clumps?) I have had thmn imposed on mine since they were built.Can't wait for the other 3 to come down too, plus the turbine hall.

Hooray. Unlike those who need to have the towers as a guide to their homes (duh? - why not use Wittenham Clumps?) I have had thmn imposed on mine since they were built.Can't wait for the other 3 to come down too, plus the turbine hall.Megs

Shame for many reasons, but even more so because I am on holiday abroad during this time. I wanted to see them go, but I won't be able to with my own eyes.

Anyway, thanks Didcot A. I will miss you.

Shame for many reasons, but even more so because I am on holiday abroad during this time. I wanted to see them go, but I won't be able to with my own eyes.
Anyway, thanks Didcot A. I will miss you.EMBOX2

On a rare road trip a couple of years ago I was gutted to see these giants were felled in 2007, I used to love seeing these as a kid:

http://en.m.wikipedi
a.org/wiki/Rugby_VLF
_transmitter

It's sad when a bit of history goes like this.
On a rare road trip a couple of years ago I was gutted to see these giants were felled in 2007, I used to love seeing these as a kid:
http://en.m.wikipedi
a.org/wiki/Rugby_VLF
_transmitterKing Joke

I wonder how many of the above posters would have been on here 50 years ago (if they were alive) complaining that the CEGB were about to build a power station in the Oxfordshire countryside and what an eyesore it would be.

I wonder how many of the above posters would have been on here 50 years ago (if they were alive) complaining that the CEGB were about to build a power station in the Oxfordshire countryside and what an eyesore it would be.bobsmith61

Big shame in a way. After a troublesome start to its life with several turbine strip downs needed due to feed heating problems, Didcot A went on to be one of the main stays on our national grid. In its very early days the stations stand-by gas turbines were used on the local area network to provide very essential top up during peak periods.

The towers were originally built by Cowley Concrete, who's base was on the Radley Road in Abingdon. One of the towers in the cluster nearest to the station main gate was rumoured to have been built with the incorrect curve, but has stood the test of time. Didcot's 6 towers are a trade off for the visual impact as the remainder of the 2000 MW stations built at this time all had 8 towers apart frpm those built on the coast.

Like many others, coming through the cut in the Chilterns on the M40 and seeing the towers and stack lights at night has always been a comfort , and the fact that we're nearly home, somehow it will never be the same without them not being there. Big shame, there was plenty of life left in those turbines. The 400kv grid site will be all that is left at the end. What is happening to the pipe work from the Thames up to the station ? Surely Thames Water could make use of that ??

Big shame in a way. After a troublesome start to its life with several turbine strip downs needed due to feed heating problems, Didcot A went on to be one of the main stays on our national grid. In its very early days the stations stand-by gas turbines were used on the local area network to provide very essential top up during peak periods.
The towers were originally built by Cowley Concrete, who's base was on the Radley Road in Abingdon. One of the towers in the cluster nearest to the station main gate was rumoured to have been built with the incorrect curve, but has stood the test of time. Didcot's 6 towers are a trade off for the visual impact as the remainder of the 2000 MW stations built at this time all had 8 towers apart frpm those built on the coast.
Like many others, coming through the cut in the Chilterns on the M40 and seeing the towers and stack lights at night has always been a comfort , and the fact that we're nearly home, somehow it will never be the same without them not being there. Big shame, there was plenty of life left in those turbines. The 400kv grid site will be all that is left at the end. What is happening to the pipe work from the Thames up to the station ? Surely Thames Water could make use of that ??the wizard

the wizard wrote:
Big shame in a way. After a troublesome start to its life with several turbine strip downs needed due to feed heating problems, Didcot A went on to be one of the main stays on our national grid. In its very early days the stations stand-by gas turbines were used on the local area network to provide very essential top up during peak periods.

The towers were originally built by Cowley Concrete, who's base was on the Radley Road in Abingdon. One of the towers in the cluster nearest to the station main gate was rumoured to have been built with the incorrect curve, but has stood the test of time. Didcot's 6 towers are a trade off for the visual impact as the remainder of the 2000 MW stations built at this time all had 8 towers apart frpm those built on the coast.

Like many others, coming through the cut in the Chilterns on the M40 and seeing the towers and stack lights at night has always been a comfort , and the fact that we're nearly home, somehow it will never be the same without them not being there. Big shame, there was plenty of life left in those turbines. The 400kv grid site will be all that is left at the end. What is happening to the pipe work from the Thames up to the station ? Surely Thames Water could make use of that ??

Someone needs to write a book and get all this stuff down on record before the people who built it and worked there get lost in the mists of time.

The pipework etc is all being removed. I heard that there is many millions of pounds worth of scrap metal which is being recovered, and the concrete of the towers has already been sold for use in road building.

Do you know why the tower nearest the main gate is visually different to the others (it is stripey, the others are all smoothly rendered)?

[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
Big shame in a way. After a troublesome start to its life with several turbine strip downs needed due to feed heating problems, Didcot A went on to be one of the main stays on our national grid. In its very early days the stations stand-by gas turbines were used on the local area network to provide very essential top up during peak periods.
The towers were originally built by Cowley Concrete, who's base was on the Radley Road in Abingdon. One of the towers in the cluster nearest to the station main gate was rumoured to have been built with the incorrect curve, but has stood the test of time. Didcot's 6 towers are a trade off for the visual impact as the remainder of the 2000 MW stations built at this time all had 8 towers apart frpm those built on the coast.
Like many others, coming through the cut in the Chilterns on the M40 and seeing the towers and stack lights at night has always been a comfort , and the fact that we're nearly home, somehow it will never be the same without them not being there. Big shame, there was plenty of life left in those turbines. The 400kv grid site will be all that is left at the end. What is happening to the pipe work from the Thames up to the station ? Surely Thames Water could make use of that ??[/p][/quote]Someone needs to write a book and get all this stuff down on record before the people who built it and worked there get lost in the mists of time.
The pipework etc is all being removed. I heard that there is many millions of pounds worth of scrap metal which is being recovered, and the concrete of the towers has already been sold for use in road building.
Do you know why the tower nearest the main gate is visually different to the others (it is stripey, the others are all smoothly rendered)?EMBOX2

It's impossible to understand why people are so sentimental about a load of old concrete that stands testament to a long outmoded and environmentally unsound method of electricity production which was reliant upon the health- damaging physical hard graft of men working underground for hours on end in dangerous and unpleasant conditions. Didcot A was anachronistic when it was built, other methods of fueling wer,e even then, becoming increasingly available and is, in truth a dinosaur.

It's impossible to understand why people are so sentimental about a load of old concrete that stands testament to a long outmoded and environmentally unsound method of electricity production which was reliant upon the health- damaging physical hard graft of men working underground for hours on end in dangerous and unpleasant conditions. Didcot A was anachronistic when it was built, other methods of fueling wer,e even then, becoming increasingly available and is, in truth a dinosaur.Megs

It was built in the early 70s, when renewables were in their infancy and when we recognised the importance of having a secure indigenous energy source. Governments of the day, of all colours, built state-of-the-art drift mines, large coal-fired power stations, and BR designed merry-go-round trains to keep the two linked efficiently 24 hours a day. It may have been unpleasant working underground but conditions were improving and people loved the secure livelihoods and local economies the pits supported, which have never been replaced. It worked very nicely for a decade. It's what we used to call common sense.

No, it wouldn't be the right solution today but this was all planned over forty years ago.

It was built in the early 70s, when renewables were in their infancy and when we recognised the importance of having a secure indigenous energy source. Governments of the day, of all colours, built state-of-the-art drift mines, large coal-fired power stations, and BR designed merry-go-round trains to keep the two linked efficiently 24 hours a day. It may have been unpleasant working underground but conditions were improving and people loved the secure livelihoods and local economies the pits supported, which have never been replaced. It worked very nicely for a decade. It's what we used to call common sense.
No, it wouldn't be the right solution today but this was all planned over forty years ago.King Joke

King Joke wrote:
It was built in the early 70s, when renewables were in their infancy and when we recognised the importance of having a secure indigenous energy source. Governments of the day, of all colours, built state-of-the-art drift mines, large coal-fired power stations, and BR designed merry-go-round trains to keep the two linked efficiently 24 hours a day. It may have been unpleasant working underground but conditions were improving and people loved the secure livelihoods and local economies the pits supported, which have never been replaced. It worked very nicely for a decade. It's what we used to call common sense. No, it wouldn't be the right solution today but this was all planned over forty years ago.

Whitehall records show that the key reason coal fired power stations were built in the 1970s was the immense political power of the NUM, whose leaders eventually did for those they were supposed to represent, which bank-rolled one party and, until Mrs T came along, terrified the other. I remember discussing this reliance on coal with colleagues in the energy ministries at the time, when nuclear power was a major option. This was an era when the UK was on the leading edge of this technology. Decisions by Ministers in favour of coal squandered this. We now have the situation where France, which has happily been living with nuclear power for many decades is going to provide the technology which we can no longer do for ourselves, and will also reap the profits.
My partner comes from a mining family and does not recognise the Hovis- advert rosy glow of mining life conjured up by King Joke. When sentimalising Didcot & other coal powered stations it is worth remembering the tens of thousands of miners who were killed, injured or afflicted by fatal illnesses, bringing misery and destitution to their families (the tragedies occasioned by nuclear power are miniscule in comparison).
Didcot A was built at a time when there was already knowledge about the disasterous effects of burning fossil fuels - then, it was particularly acid rain, for which a technology had to be hurridly invented and installed - so much better not to need it in the first place.
What else would those who want to see it preserved as some kind of memorial to our past like to see next? Preservation of the Victorian workhouses which fostered the previous greatest amount of inequality in this country until modern times?

[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
It was built in the early 70s, when renewables were in their infancy and when we recognised the importance of having a secure indigenous energy source. Governments of the day, of all colours, built state-of-the-art drift mines, large coal-fired power stations, and BR designed merry-go-round trains to keep the two linked efficiently 24 hours a day. It may have been unpleasant working underground but conditions were improving and people loved the secure livelihoods and local economies the pits supported, which have never been replaced. It worked very nicely for a decade. It's what we used to call common sense. No, it wouldn't be the right solution today but this was all planned over forty years ago.[/p][/quote]Whitehall records show that the key reason coal fired power stations were built in the 1970s was the immense political power of the NUM, whose leaders eventually did for those they were supposed to represent, which bank-rolled one party and, until Mrs T came along, terrified the other. I remember discussing this reliance on coal with colleagues in the energy ministries at the time, when nuclear power was a major option. This was an era when the UK was on the leading edge of this technology. Decisions by Ministers in favour of coal squandered this. We now have the situation where France, which has happily been living with nuclear power for many decades is going to provide the technology which we can no longer do for ourselves, and will also reap the profits.
My partner comes from a mining family and does not recognise the Hovis- advert rosy glow of mining life conjured up by King Joke. When sentimalising Didcot & other coal powered stations it is worth remembering the tens of thousands of miners who were killed, injured or afflicted by fatal illnesses, bringing misery and destitution to their families (the tragedies occasioned by nuclear power are miniscule in comparison).
Didcot A was built at a time when there was already knowledge about the disasterous effects of burning fossil fuels - then, it was particularly acid rain, for which a technology had to be hurridly invented and installed - so much better not to need it in the first place.
What else would those who want to see it preserved as some kind of memorial to our past like to see next? Preservation of the Victorian workhouses which fostered the previous greatest amount of inequality in this country until modern times?Megs

Megs wrote:
It's impossible to understand why people are so sentimental about a load of old concrete that stands testament to a long outmoded and environmentally unsound method of electricity production which was reliant upon the health- damaging physical hard graft of men working underground for hours on end in dangerous and unpleasant conditions. Didcot A was anachronistic when it was built, other methods of fueling wer,e even then, becoming increasingly available and is, in truth a dinosaur.

It's very simple Megs. Didcot A provided many thousands of jobs to local people, many people met there and got married, so without it, our local area would be very different indeed.

It is environmentally unsound, absolutely, but we have coal here in the UK.
The UK cannot be powered by wind nor solar alone; indeed the more of these we have the harder it is to balance the grid (as elec. cannot be easily stored) and so we need "baseload" generation to be backbone of supplies.

With Mr. Putin controlling the gas taps for most of Europe, and China needing ever more gas too, it is not hard to see why coal still has a place.

If the worst happens and we get no Russian gas, we have a major problem. We can mine coal here at home. Keeping the lights on is more important than climate change, but we must keep searching for environmentally friendly solutions.

[quote][p][bold]Megs[/bold] wrote:
It's impossible to understand why people are so sentimental about a load of old concrete that stands testament to a long outmoded and environmentally unsound method of electricity production which was reliant upon the health- damaging physical hard graft of men working underground for hours on end in dangerous and unpleasant conditions. Didcot A was anachronistic when it was built, other methods of fueling wer,e even then, becoming increasingly available and is, in truth a dinosaur.[/p][/quote]It's very simple Megs. Didcot A provided many thousands of jobs to local people, many people met there and got married, so without it, our local area would be very different indeed.
It is environmentally unsound, absolutely, but we have coal here in the UK.
The UK cannot be powered by wind nor solar alone; indeed the more of these we have the harder it is to balance the grid (as elec. cannot be easily stored) and so we need "baseload" generation to be backbone of supplies.
With Mr. Putin controlling the gas taps for most of Europe, and China needing ever more gas too, it is not hard to see why coal still has a place.
If the worst happens and we get no Russian gas, we have a major problem. We can mine coal here at home. Keeping the lights on is more important than climate change, but we must keep searching for environmentally friendly solutions.EMBOX2

Megs wrote:
It's impossible to understand why people are so sentimental about a load of old concrete that stands testament to a long outmoded and environmentally unsound method of electricity production which was reliant upon the health- damaging physical hard graft of men working underground for hours on end in dangerous and unpleasant conditions. Didcot A was anachronistic when it was built, other methods of fueling wer,e even then, becoming increasingly available and is, in truth a dinosaur.

What you say is technically true, but for those of us who can see the good side, the huge columns of steam rising into the sky and being illuminated and coloured pink by the rising sun on a calm frosty winter morning......THAT is what I will remember, and what I will miss.
Was a beautiful sight.

[quote][p][bold]Megs[/bold] wrote:
It's impossible to understand why people are so sentimental about a load of old concrete that stands testament to a long outmoded and environmentally unsound method of electricity production which was reliant upon the health- damaging physical hard graft of men working underground for hours on end in dangerous and unpleasant conditions. Didcot A was anachronistic when it was built, other methods of fueling wer,e even then, becoming increasingly available and is, in truth a dinosaur.[/p][/quote]What you say is technically true, but for those of us who can see the good side, the huge columns of steam rising into the sky and being illuminated and coloured pink by the rising sun on a calm frosty winter morning......THAT is what I will remember, and what I will miss.
Was a beautiful sight.livid99

You only have to watch Kes, or hear what Jarvis Cocker says about the miners he knew, to know life in pit towns was less than idyllic. It's difficult though to see how they were improved by zero employment.

The difficulties with nuclear power, the persistent lies about things going wrong, the sludge tanks at Sellafield no-one knows what to do with, the 40% of the the DECC budget keeping waste in warm store, the astronomic costs of infrastructure, are all well documented. Nukes will be part of the mix for many years, but will always need back up as they can only produce base load. All this stuff is equally true in France, it's just too inconvenient to say it. It was also well known 40 years ago, so the decision to invest in coal wasn't as irrational as you suggest.

You only have to watch Kes, or hear what Jarvis Cocker says about the miners he knew, to know life in pit towns was less than idyllic. It's difficult though to see how they were improved by zero employment.
The difficulties with nuclear power, the persistent lies about things going wrong, the sludge tanks at Sellafield no-one knows what to do with, the 40% of the the DECC budget keeping waste in warm store, the astronomic costs of infrastructure, are all well documented. Nukes will be part of the mix for many years, but will always need back up as they can only produce base load. All this stuff is equally true in France, it's just too inconvenient to say it. It was also well known 40 years ago, so the decision to invest in coal wasn't as irrational as you suggest.King Joke

King Joke wrote:
You only have to watch Kes, or hear what Jarvis Cocker says about the miners he knew, to know life in pit towns was less than idyllic. It's difficult though to see how they were improved by zero employment. The difficulties with nuclear power, the persistent lies about things going wrong, the sludge tanks at Sellafield no-one knows what to do with, the 40% of the the DECC budget keeping waste in warm store, the astronomic costs of infrastructure, are all well documented. Nukes will be part of the mix for many years, but will always need back up as they can only produce base load. All this stuff is equally true in France, it's just too inconvenient to say it. It was also well known 40 years ago, so the decision to invest in coal wasn't as irrational as you suggest.

I'm not saying the decision was irrational, from a politicians point of view it was the most rational thing to do, but pre-eminently political it was, a joust between NUM leader egotists- the miners were pawns in this- and, to some extent, rail union bosses.
Ever wondered why, on achieving Ministerial office, Tony Benn went right off nuclear power? He claimed it was the cost - but this was from the man that backed Concorde.
The sound of rapid governmental retreat from the "white heat of technology" under fire from the vote wielding, money- toting union leadership was deafening. So miners grim lives got temporarily preserved, instead of the development of modern, cleaner, replacement industries and one- industry communities were then left for Mrs Thatcher to finish off because she was not going to be in thrall to the unions.

[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
You only have to watch Kes, or hear what Jarvis Cocker says about the miners he knew, to know life in pit towns was less than idyllic. It's difficult though to see how they were improved by zero employment. The difficulties with nuclear power, the persistent lies about things going wrong, the sludge tanks at Sellafield no-one knows what to do with, the 40% of the the DECC budget keeping waste in warm store, the astronomic costs of infrastructure, are all well documented. Nukes will be part of the mix for many years, but will always need back up as they can only produce base load. All this stuff is equally true in France, it's just too inconvenient to say it. It was also well known 40 years ago, so the decision to invest in coal wasn't as irrational as you suggest.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying the decision was irrational, from a politicians point of view it was the most rational thing to do, but pre-eminently political it was, a joust between NUM leader egotists- the miners were pawns in this- and, to some extent, rail union bosses.
Ever wondered why, on achieving Ministerial office, Tony Benn went right off nuclear power? He claimed it was the cost - but this was from the man that backed Concorde.
The sound of rapid governmental retreat from the "white heat of technology" under fire from the vote wielding, money- toting union leadership was deafening. So miners grim lives got temporarily preserved, instead of the development of modern, cleaner, replacement industries and one- industry communities were then left for Mrs Thatcher to finish off because she was not going to be in thrall to the unions.Megs

We will all suffer from the lack of leadership over energy in the next few years. Indeed, as soon as winter 2015/16 National Grid have said they may have to start tripping high users off the grid (i.e. arc furnaces, freezer/refridgerati
on users) to ensure supply can match demand.

We are in a tough place. Go green and pay through the nose, and suffer rolling blackouts, or pollute but keep the lights on. Until fusion happens (hah, probably never) or we find a clean way to make hydrogen in the quantities we need it......we really are up a creek.

We will all suffer from the lack of leadership over energy in the next few years. Indeed, as soon as winter 2015/16 National Grid have said they may have to start tripping high users off the grid (i.e. arc furnaces, freezer/refridgerati
on users) to ensure supply can match demand.
Nuclear - too expensive, big waste issues, gas - see my comment above, coal - dirty but cheap for now, solar'/tidal/wind expensive and parasitic on the grid.
We are in a tough place. Go green and pay through the nose, and suffer rolling blackouts, or pollute but keep the lights on. Until fusion happens (hah, probably never) or we find a clean way to make hydrogen in the quantities we need it......we really are up a creek.EMBOX2

One of the towers is "stripy" because it was re-inforced a number of years ago as (AFAIK) it had started leaning. It also has extra supports at the bottom which were added at the same time. I understand one of the northern cooling towers is also leaning slightly.

One of the towers is "stripy" because it was re-inforced a number of years ago as (AFAIK) it had started leaning. It also has extra supports at the bottom which were added at the same time. I understand one of the northern cooling towers is also leaning slightly.jochta

Nope, that'll probably be the last thing to come down in 2016 once the site is clear and there is room for it to fall.

[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
Is the smokestack coming down at the same time?[/p][/quote]Nope, that'll probably be the last thing to come down in 2016 once the site is clear and there is room for it to fall.EMBOX2

What about Didcot Cricket Clubs cricket pitch? Will matches be playable for the remainder of the season? With all the dust this could lend itself to spin. Perhaps Mouse Pryor could come out of retirement and rise like a phoenix from the Ashes to replace the void Graeme Swann's retirement has left England with.

What about Didcot Cricket Clubs cricket pitch? Will matches be playable for the remainder of the season? With all the dust this could lend itself to spin. Perhaps Mouse Pryor could come out of retirement and rise like a phoenix from the Ashes to replace the void Graeme Swann's retirement has left England with.Sidney's Kidneys

King Joke wrote:
It was built in the early 70s, when renewables were in their infancy and when we recognised the importance of having a secure indigenous energy source. Governments of the day, of all colours, built state-of-the-art drift mines, large coal-fired power stations, and BR designed merry-go-round trains to keep the two linked efficiently 24 hours a day. It may have been unpleasant working underground but conditions were improving and people loved the secure livelihoods and local economies the pits supported, which have never been replaced. It worked very nicely for a decade. It's what we used to call common sense.

No, it wouldn't be the right solution today but this was all planned over forty years ago.

Errr sorry to disappoint but the initial construction of Didcot A was most definitely in the 1960's, although your point may be still valid. Other stations such as Drax were much larger( 6 machines @660MW instead of 4@500MW) and the Scandinavians hated them due to the flue gases causing acid rain, as the flue stacks were so high which enabled wind to carry the problems away from our coastal region.

Further to my point yesterday about the start/stand-by gas turbines on the A site. They were down rated English Electric 35MW machines, but the CEGB, the original nationalized owner had only ordered 25MW machines steps were put in place after the build to limit their output as they originally over performed. From the commencement of their build to the day the 4th was commissioned a period of just less than 12 months had elapsed and they regularly prevented power cuts in this area during the winters of 69, 70 and 71.

Pollution was a factor with these machines as well as their twin Rolls Royce Avon engines were deemed as smokey. Didcot however had an ace card with its Maintenance Superintendent Glen Havard who engineered modifications to reduce the pollution of these engines and reduce their emissions.

On the main site several engineers were employed who migrated from various supplying contractors and brought with them valuable experience and knowledge to the site operating and maintenance staff. All of these guys will by now be retired by some many years. Some of the stations apprentices went on the gain senior positions within the station management while others went on to gain good positions elsewhere in industry.

[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
It was built in the early 70s, when renewables were in their infancy and when we recognised the importance of having a secure indigenous energy source. Governments of the day, of all colours, built state-of-the-art drift mines, large coal-fired power stations, and BR designed merry-go-round trains to keep the two linked efficiently 24 hours a day. It may have been unpleasant working underground but conditions were improving and people loved the secure livelihoods and local economies the pits supported, which have never been replaced. It worked very nicely for a decade. It's what we used to call common sense.
No, it wouldn't be the right solution today but this was all planned over forty years ago.[/p][/quote]Errr sorry to disappoint but the initial construction of Didcot A was most definitely in the 1960's, although your point may be still valid. Other stations such as Drax were much larger( 6 machines @660MW instead of 4@500MW) and the Scandinavians hated them due to the flue gases causing acid rain, as the flue stacks were so high which enabled wind to carry the problems away from our coastal region.
Further to my point yesterday about the start/stand-by gas turbines on the A site. They were down rated English Electric 35MW machines, but the CEGB, the original nationalized owner had only ordered 25MW machines steps were put in place after the build to limit their output as they originally over performed. From the commencement of their build to the day the 4th was commissioned a period of just less than 12 months had elapsed and they regularly prevented power cuts in this area during the winters of 69, 70 and 71.
Pollution was a factor with these machines as well as their twin Rolls Royce Avon engines were deemed as smokey. Didcot however had an ace card with its Maintenance Superintendent Glen Havard who engineered modifications to reduce the pollution of these engines and reduce their emissions.
On the main site several engineers were employed who migrated from various supplying contractors and brought with them valuable experience and knowledge to the site operating and maintenance staff. All of these guys will by now be retired by some many years. Some of the stations apprentices went on the gain senior positions within the station management while others went on to gain good positions elsewhere in industry.the wizard

Sorry Wizard, I should have done some research about when it was built.

Surely with a national grid Didcot would have prevented power cuts across the country rather than just in this area? Or were there long-distance transmission lines down as well?

Sorry Wizard, I should have done some research about when it was built.
Surely with a national grid Didcot would have prevented power cuts across the country rather than just in this area? Or were there long-distance transmission lines down as well?King Joke

[quote][p][bold]John Lamb[/bold] wrote:
Three concrete structures being professionally demolished and falling at freefall speed in less than a minute?
Hmmmm......now what does that remind me of?[/p][/quote]Let me guess......The Stafford Tower accommodation block at Aston University ?livid99

King Joke wrote:
It was built in the early 70s, when renewables were in their infancy and when we recognised the importance of having a secure indigenous energy source. Governments of the day, of all colours, built state-of-the-art drift mines, large coal-fired power stations, and BR designed merry-go-round trains to keep the two linked efficiently 24 hours a day. It may have been unpleasant working underground but conditions were improving and people loved the secure livelihoods and local economies the pits supported, which have never been replaced. It worked very nicely for a decade. It's what we used to call common sense.

No, it wouldn't be the right solution today but this was all planned over forty years ago.

Errr sorry to disappoint but the initial construction of Didcot A was most definitely in the 1960's, although your point may be still valid. Other stations such as Drax were much larger( 6 machines @660MW instead of 4@500MW) and the Scandinavians hated them due to the flue gases causing acid rain, as the flue stacks were so high which enabled wind to carry the problems away from our coastal region.

Further to my point yesterday about the start/stand-by gas turbines on the A site. They were down rated English Electric 35MW machines, but the CEGB, the original nationalized owner had only ordered 25MW machines steps were put in place after the build to limit their output as they originally over performed. From the commencement of their build to the day the 4th was commissioned a period of just less than 12 months had elapsed and they regularly prevented power cuts in this area during the winters of 69, 70 and 71.

Pollution was a factor with these machines as well as their twin Rolls Royce Avon engines were deemed as smokey. Didcot however had an ace card with its Maintenance Superintendent Glen Havard who engineered modifications to reduce the pollution of these engines and reduce their emissions.

On the main site several engineers were employed who migrated from various supplying contractors and brought with them valuable experience and knowledge to the site operating and maintenance staff. All of these guys will by now be retired by some many years. Some of the stations apprentices went on the gain senior positions within the station management while others went on to gain good positions elsewhere in industry.

"Pollution was a factor with these machines as well as their twin Rolls Royce Avon engines were deemed as smokey. "

Interestingly, the RR engines which provided cold-start capability to Didcot A are being kept on, and so the small stack with the blue cap will continue to stand for many years - Didcot B is taking this over as it adds a very useful 25MW of power which can be started at very short notice.

[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
It was built in the early 70s, when renewables were in their infancy and when we recognised the importance of having a secure indigenous energy source. Governments of the day, of all colours, built state-of-the-art drift mines, large coal-fired power stations, and BR designed merry-go-round trains to keep the two linked efficiently 24 hours a day. It may have been unpleasant working underground but conditions were improving and people loved the secure livelihoods and local economies the pits supported, which have never been replaced. It worked very nicely for a decade. It's what we used to call common sense.
No, it wouldn't be the right solution today but this was all planned over forty years ago.[/p][/quote]Errr sorry to disappoint but the initial construction of Didcot A was most definitely in the 1960's, although your point may be still valid. Other stations such as Drax were much larger( 6 machines @660MW instead of 4@500MW) and the Scandinavians hated them due to the flue gases causing acid rain, as the flue stacks were so high which enabled wind to carry the problems away from our coastal region.
Further to my point yesterday about the start/stand-by gas turbines on the A site. They were down rated English Electric 35MW machines, but the CEGB, the original nationalized owner had only ordered 25MW machines steps were put in place after the build to limit their output as they originally over performed. From the commencement of their build to the day the 4th was commissioned a period of just less than 12 months had elapsed and they regularly prevented power cuts in this area during the winters of 69, 70 and 71.
Pollution was a factor with these machines as well as their twin Rolls Royce Avon engines were deemed as smokey. Didcot however had an ace card with its Maintenance Superintendent Glen Havard who engineered modifications to reduce the pollution of these engines and reduce their emissions.
On the main site several engineers were employed who migrated from various supplying contractors and brought with them valuable experience and knowledge to the site operating and maintenance staff. All of these guys will by now be retired by some many years. Some of the stations apprentices went on the gain senior positions within the station management while others went on to gain good positions elsewhere in industry.[/p][/quote]"Pollution was a factor with these machines as well as their twin Rolls Royce Avon engines were deemed as smokey. "
Interestingly, the RR engines which provided cold-start capability to Didcot A are being kept on, and so the small stack with the blue cap will continue to stand for many years - Didcot B is taking this over as it adds a very useful 25MW of power which can be started at very short notice.EMBOX2

King Joke wrote:
You only have to watch Kes, or hear what Jarvis Cocker says about the miners he knew, to know life in pit towns was less than idyllic. It's difficult though to see how they were improved by zero employment. The difficulties with nuclear power, the persistent lies about things going wrong, the sludge tanks at Sellafield no-one knows what to do with, the 40% of the the DECC budget keeping waste in warm store, the astronomic costs of infrastructure, are all well documented. Nukes will be part of the mix for many years, but will always need back up as they can only produce base load. All this stuff is equally true in France, it's just too inconvenient to say it. It was also well known 40 years ago, so the decision to invest in coal wasn't as irrational as you suggest.

I'm not saying the decision was irrational, from a politicians point of view it was the most rational thing to do, but pre-eminently political it was, a joust between NUM leader egotists- the miners were pawns in this- and, to some extent, rail union bosses.
Ever wondered why, on achieving Ministerial office, Tony Benn went right off nuclear power? He claimed it was the cost - but this was from the man that backed Concorde.
The sound of rapid governmental retreat from the &quot;white heat of technology" under fire from the vote wielding, money- toting union leadership was deafening. So miners grim lives got temporarily preserved, instead of the development of modern, cleaner, replacement industries and one- industry communities were then left for Mrs Thatcher to finish off because she was not going to be in thrall to the unions.

The facts and motivations in above assessment is doubtless true, but I don't see the benefit of replacing someone's 'grim' life with unemployment which is pretty grim despite what you read in the Daily Mail. Neither do I see the benefit of over-reliance of 'modern, clean' technologies which are astronomically expensive and still on shaky safety grounds. I also don't see the disadvantage in 'one-industry communities' if their industry addresses a national need; in this case it was secure indigenous energy which would be a lot cleaner now if we'd been fagged to do the research the Germans have done on CCS. See also train building in Derby.

[quote][p][bold]Megs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
You only have to watch Kes, or hear what Jarvis Cocker says about the miners he knew, to know life in pit towns was less than idyllic. It's difficult though to see how they were improved by zero employment. The difficulties with nuclear power, the persistent lies about things going wrong, the sludge tanks at Sellafield no-one knows what to do with, the 40% of the the DECC budget keeping waste in warm store, the astronomic costs of infrastructure, are all well documented. Nukes will be part of the mix for many years, but will always need back up as they can only produce base load. All this stuff is equally true in France, it's just too inconvenient to say it. It was also well known 40 years ago, so the decision to invest in coal wasn't as irrational as you suggest.[/p][/quote]I'm not saying the decision was irrational, from a politicians point of view it was the most rational thing to do, but pre-eminently political it was, a joust between NUM leader egotists- the miners were pawns in this- and, to some extent, rail union bosses.
Ever wondered why, on achieving Ministerial office, Tony Benn went right off nuclear power? He claimed it was the cost - but this was from the man that backed Concorde.
The sound of rapid governmental retreat from the "white heat of technology" under fire from the vote wielding, money- toting union leadership was deafening. So miners grim lives got temporarily preserved, instead of the development of modern, cleaner, replacement industries and one- industry communities were then left for Mrs Thatcher to finish off because she was not going to be in thrall to the unions.[/p][/quote]The facts and motivations in above assessment is doubtless true, but I don't see the benefit of replacing someone's 'grim' life with unemployment which is pretty grim despite what you read in the Daily Mail. Neither do I see the benefit of over-reliance of 'modern, clean' technologies which are astronomically expensive and still on shaky safety grounds. I also don't see the disadvantage in 'one-industry communities' if their industry addresses a national need; in this case it was secure indigenous energy which would be a lot cleaner now if we'd been fagged to do the research the Germans have done on CCS. See also train building in Derby.King Joke

King Joke wrote:
It was built in the early 70s, when renewables were in their infancy and when we recognised the importance of having a secure indigenous energy source. Governments of the day, of all colours, built state-of-the-art drift mines, large coal-fired power stations, and BR designed merry-go-round trains to keep the two linked efficiently 24 hours a day. It may have been unpleasant working underground but conditions were improving and people loved the secure livelihoods and local economies the pits supported, which have never been replaced. It worked very nicely for a decade. It's what we used to call common sense.

No, it wouldn't be the right solution today but this was all planned over forty years ago.

Errr sorry to disappoint but the initial construction of Didcot A was most definitely in the 1960's, although your point may be still valid. Other stations such as Drax were much larger( 6 machines @660MW instead of 4@500MW) and the Scandinavians hated them due to the flue gases causing acid rain, as the flue stacks were so high which enabled wind to carry the problems away from our coastal region.

Further to my point yesterday about the start/stand-by gas turbines on the A site. They were down rated English Electric 35MW machines, but the CEGB, the original nationalized owner had only ordered 25MW machines steps were put in place after the build to limit their output as they originally over performed. From the commencement of their build to the day the 4th was commissioned a period of just less than 12 months had elapsed and they regularly prevented power cuts in this area during the winters of 69, 70 and 71.

Pollution was a factor with these machines as well as their twin Rolls Royce Avon engines were deemed as smokey. Didcot however had an ace card with its Maintenance Superintendent Glen Havard who engineered modifications to reduce the pollution of these engines and reduce their emissions.

On the main site several engineers were employed who migrated from various supplying contractors and brought with them valuable experience and knowledge to the site operating and maintenance staff. All of these guys will by now be retired by some many years. Some of the stations apprentices went on the gain senior positions within the station management while others went on to gain good positions elsewhere in industry.

&quot;Pollution was a factor with these machines as well as their twin Rolls Royce Avon engines were deemed as smokey. "

Interestingly, the RR engines which provided cold-start capability to Didcot A are being kept on, and so the small stack with the blue cap will continue to stand for many years - Didcot B is taking this over as it adds a very useful 25MW of power which can be started at very short notice.

Didcot B is not the station with the small stack with 25MW machines. Didcot B is a Combined Cycle plant which has two pairs of gas turbines which run singularly or as a pair and their exhaust heat is fed through a heat reclaim boiler and each boiler raises enough steam to power a conventional steam turbine. The full load capability of this station I believe is 1360MW and is reliant on the Combined Cycle machines being started up off the national grid and run as motors until the start up sequence is initiated and the machine synchronized to the grid under its own power, before power is generated. This site is situated due west of the old start/standby and is easily recognised on Google maps, see https://www.google.c
o.uk/maps/place/Didc
ot/@51.6244117,-1.26
55611,278m/data=!3m1
!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x487
6b90e1a18e49d:0x8f09
c9dc353a40e0. For an official explanation see http://www.rwe.com/w
eb/cms/en/320906/rwe
-npower/about-us/our
-businesses/power-ge
neration/didcot/didc
ot-b/

The 25MW machines by English Electric I have been given to believe fell into dis repair some years ago and as such had been written off and were not functional for some years. You will see that the B site is much bigger than the old GT house.

[quote][p][bold]EMBOX2[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
It was built in the early 70s, when renewables were in their infancy and when we recognised the importance of having a secure indigenous energy source. Governments of the day, of all colours, built state-of-the-art drift mines, large coal-fired power stations, and BR designed merry-go-round trains to keep the two linked efficiently 24 hours a day. It may have been unpleasant working underground but conditions were improving and people loved the secure livelihoods and local economies the pits supported, which have never been replaced. It worked very nicely for a decade. It's what we used to call common sense.
No, it wouldn't be the right solution today but this was all planned over forty years ago.[/p][/quote]Errr sorry to disappoint but the initial construction of Didcot A was most definitely in the 1960's, although your point may be still valid. Other stations such as Drax were much larger( 6 machines @660MW instead of 4@500MW) and the Scandinavians hated them due to the flue gases causing acid rain, as the flue stacks were so high which enabled wind to carry the problems away from our coastal region.
Further to my point yesterday about the start/stand-by gas turbines on the A site. They were down rated English Electric 35MW machines, but the CEGB, the original nationalized owner had only ordered 25MW machines steps were put in place after the build to limit their output as they originally over performed. From the commencement of their build to the day the 4th was commissioned a period of just less than 12 months had elapsed and they regularly prevented power cuts in this area during the winters of 69, 70 and 71.
Pollution was a factor with these machines as well as their twin Rolls Royce Avon engines were deemed as smokey. Didcot however had an ace card with its Maintenance Superintendent Glen Havard who engineered modifications to reduce the pollution of these engines and reduce their emissions.
On the main site several engineers were employed who migrated from various supplying contractors and brought with them valuable experience and knowledge to the site operating and maintenance staff. All of these guys will by now be retired by some many years. Some of the stations apprentices went on the gain senior positions within the station management while others went on to gain good positions elsewhere in industry.[/p][/quote]"Pollution was a factor with these machines as well as their twin Rolls Royce Avon engines were deemed as smokey. "
Interestingly, the RR engines which provided cold-start capability to Didcot A are being kept on, and so the small stack with the blue cap will continue to stand for many years - Didcot B is taking this over as it adds a very useful 25MW of power which can be started at very short notice.[/p][/quote]Didcot B is not the station with the small stack with 25MW machines. Didcot B is a Combined Cycle plant which has two pairs of gas turbines which run singularly or as a pair and their exhaust heat is fed through a heat reclaim boiler and each boiler raises enough steam to power a conventional steam turbine. The full load capability of this station I believe is 1360MW and is reliant on the Combined Cycle machines being started up off the national grid and run as motors until the start up sequence is initiated and the machine synchronized to the grid under its own power, before power is generated. This site is situated due west of the old start/standby and is easily recognised on Google maps, see https://www.google.c
o.uk/maps/place/Didc
ot/@51.6244117,-1.26
55611,278m/data=!3m1
!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x487
6b90e1a18e49d:0x8f09
c9dc353a40e0. For an official explanation see http://www.rwe.com/w
eb/cms/en/320906/rwe
-npower/about-us/our
-businesses/power-ge
neration/didcot/didc
ot-b/
The 25MW machines by English Electric I have been given to believe fell into dis repair some years ago and as such had been written off and were not functional for some years. You will see that the B site is much bigger than the old GT house.the wizard

As I understand it, npower are saying that they don't want to give an exact time for the demolition, because they don't want too large a crowd. I think this is a big mistake - unless of course they are afraid it might go wrong! This will be a major dramatic event for the area, and I think thousands of people would love to see the explosions. Many other demolitions of this kind have been witnessed by the public, and as far as if know there has never been a problem. Let them announce that it will be at, say, 11 a.m. and then we can all come and watch from designated safe vantage points.

As I understand it, npower are saying that they don't want to give an exact time for the demolition, because they don't want too large a crowd. I think this is a big mistake - unless of course they are afraid it might go wrong! This will be a major dramatic event for the area, and I think thousands of people would love to see the explosions. Many other demolitions of this kind have been witnessed by the public, and as far as if know there has never been a problem. Let them announce that it will be at, say, 11 a.m. and then we can all come and watch from designated safe vantage points.delune

wizard - read my post again. I know what Didcot B is me old mate....what I said was, they are taking over the RR engines which have not fallen into disrepair (at least, not when I was there in Dec 2012!!) and control of them will be passed to 'B' - to give a very useful 25MW of power should the grid ever need it.

I'll dig out the link and put it up here.

wizard - read my post again. I know what Didcot B is me old mate....what I said was, they are taking over the RR engines which have not fallen into disrepair (at least, not when I was there in Dec 2012!!) and control of them will be passed to 'B' - to give a very useful 25MW of power should the grid ever need it.
I'll dig out the link and put it up here.EMBOX2

EMBOX2 wrote:
wizard - read my post again. I know what Didcot B is me old mate....what I said was, they are taking over the RR engines which have not fallen into disrepair (at least, not when I was there in Dec 2012!!) and control of them will be passed to 'B' - to give a very useful 25MW of power should the grid ever need it.

I'll dig out the link and put it up here.

Good man, I'll look forward to that. Noisy was an understatement in there when they were running. The note was very shrill opposed to those on B site.

[quote][p][bold]EMBOX2[/bold] wrote:
wizard - read my post again. I know what Didcot B is me old mate....what I said was, they are taking over the RR engines which have not fallen into disrepair (at least, not when I was there in Dec 2012!!) and control of them will be passed to 'B' - to give a very useful 25MW of power should the grid ever need it.
I'll dig out the link and put it up here.[/p][/quote]Good man, I'll look forward to that. Noisy was an understatement in there when they were running. The note was very shrill opposed to those on B site.the wizard

EMBOX2 wrote:
wizard - read my post again. I know what Didcot B is me old mate....what I said was, they are taking over the RR engines which have not fallen into disrepair (at least, not when I was there in Dec 2012!!) and control of them will be passed to 'B' - to give a very useful 25MW of power should the grid ever need it.

I'll dig out the link and put it up here.

And did you know they go even better when the ali scaffolding has been taken out of the exhaust duct .

[quote][p][bold]EMBOX2[/bold] wrote:
wizard - read my post again. I know what Didcot B is me old mate....what I said was, they are taking over the RR engines which have not fallen into disrepair (at least, not when I was there in Dec 2012!!) and control of them will be passed to 'B' - to give a very useful 25MW of power should the grid ever need it.
I'll dig out the link and put it up here.[/p][/quote]And did you know they go even better when the ali scaffolding has been taken out of the exhaust duct .the wizard

On the serious side, if the self-starting turbines could be brought back into use it would make sense. As renewables make up a greater share of the national energy mix, balancing services like black start will become more valuable, and I believe capacity payments for standby plant were part of the recent Energy Bill.

On the serious side, if the self-starting turbines could be brought back into use it would make sense. As renewables make up a greater share of the national energy mix, balancing services like black start will become more valuable, and I believe capacity payments for standby plant were part of the recent Energy Bill.King Joke

King Joke wrote:
On the serious side, if the self-starting turbines could be brought back into use it would make sense. As renewables make up a greater share of the national energy mix, balancing services like black start will become more valuable, and I believe capacity payments for standby plant were part of the recent Energy Bill.

I agree with you, but they must be expensive to run, as during my tenure on site they ran on aviation fuel. If they can be converted to run on gas then that is a much better prospect. If their use is limited then they are probably cost effective, but to be run on an elevated basis such as peak lopping then I don't think they would be economically viable given the engine cycles due to their running hours and engine overhaul costs. We shall see and I'm looking forward to EMBOX coming back with a link to the article, good man, and as he correctly points out at 25MW each x 4 gives a healthy contribution and goes straight onto our local area network.

[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
On the serious side, if the self-starting turbines could be brought back into use it would make sense. As renewables make up a greater share of the national energy mix, balancing services like black start will become more valuable, and I believe capacity payments for standby plant were part of the recent Energy Bill.[/p][/quote]I agree with you, but they must be expensive to run, as during my tenure on site they ran on aviation fuel. If they can be converted to run on gas then that is a much better prospect. If their use is limited then they are probably cost effective, but to be run on an elevated basis such as peak lopping then I don't think they would be economically viable given the engine cycles due to their running hours and engine overhaul costs. We shall see and I'm looking forward to EMBOX coming back with a link to the article, good man, and as he correctly points out at 25MW each x 4 gives a healthy contribution and goes straight onto our local area network.the wizard

delune wrote:
As I understand it, npower are saying that they don't want to give an exact time for the demolition, because they don't want too large a crowd. I think this is a big mistake - unless of course they are afraid it might go wrong! This will be a major dramatic event for the area, and I think thousands of people would love to see the explosions. Many other demolitions of this kind have been witnessed by the public, and as far as if know there has never been a problem. Let them announce that it will be at, say, 11 a.m. and then we can all come and watch from designated safe vantage points.

It shouldnt be too hard to figure out what time frame it will be happening anyway, all you need to look out for is the timings of the road closures in the area near to the site, these will be posted on the county council website along with times of closures/organisatio
n requesting it etc...

Personally the best place to watch it is old Mother Dunches buttocks - Wittenham clumps

[quote][p][bold]delune[/bold] wrote:
As I understand it, npower are saying that they don't want to give an exact time for the demolition, because they don't want too large a crowd. I think this is a big mistake - unless of course they are afraid it might go wrong! This will be a major dramatic event for the area, and I think thousands of people would love to see the explosions. Many other demolitions of this kind have been witnessed by the public, and as far as if know there has never been a problem. Let them announce that it will be at, say, 11 a.m. and then we can all come and watch from designated safe vantage points.[/p][/quote]It shouldnt be too hard to figure out what time frame it will be happening anyway, all you need to look out for is the timings of the road closures in the area near to the site, these will be posted on the county council website along with times of closures/organisatio
n requesting it etc...
Personally the best place to watch it is old Mother Dunches buttocks - Wittenham clumpsyabbadabbadoo256

King Joke wrote:
Really? Are they embedded in the Southern distribution network rather than the National Grid?

The main A station sent its power out on the nation grid, first stops being Cowley sub and Bramley(between Reading and Basingstoke). The Bramley line met up with a feed from Fawley (on Southampton water). The l.a.n which the old GT house was connected to went out I believe to local substations. The GT's fed the station on the internal station11kv network. Probably this is traceable on Google Satellite, but as such , no, they didn't go onto the national grid as you would know it. Don't forget their main purpose was to enable a cold start for each main unit should the station get disconnected from the main 400kv grid, or Super Grid, as it was known in those days. The local supply was always a secondary consideration and not designed as their main purpose.

[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
Really? Are they embedded in the Southern distribution network rather than the National Grid?[/p][/quote]The main A station sent its power out on the nation grid, first stops being Cowley sub and Bramley(between Reading and Basingstoke). The Bramley line met up with a feed from Fawley (on Southampton water). The l.a.n which the old GT house was connected to went out I believe to local substations. The GT's fed the station on the internal station11kv network. Probably this is traceable on Google Satellite, but as such , no, they didn't go onto the national grid as you would know it. Don't forget their main purpose was to enable a cold start for each main unit should the station get disconnected from the main 400kv grid, or Super Grid, as it was known in those days. The local supply was always a secondary consideration and not designed as their main purpose.the wizard

King Joke wrote:
Really? Are they embedded in the Southern distribution network rather than the National Grid?

The main A station sent its power out on the nation grid, first stops being Cowley sub and Bramley(between Reading and Basingstoke). The Bramley line met up with a feed from Fawley (on Southampton water). The l.a.n which the old GT house was connected to went out I believe to local substations. The GT's fed the station on the internal station11kv network. Probably this is traceable on Google Satellite, but as such , no, they didn't go onto the national grid as you would know it. Don't forget their main purpose was to enable a cold start for each main unit should the station get disconnected from the main 400kv grid, or Super Grid, as it was known in those days. The local supply was always a secondary consideration and not designed as their main purpose.

I should have added that after Cowley the 400 kv line diversified, and two feeds(one pylon group) went down the west country to Severn Springs, the pylon line can be clearly seen at Botley snaking its way westward. The ongoing line from there went down to West Wales, going under the the river Severn very close to the original Severn Bridge. The old CEGB as it was then ran the line through their own tunnel in water cooled tubes. I was given to believe that these were made of a special glass. Now whether that is correct or not I don't know. The other line from Cowley I believe snakes across towards Thame and onwards, but the years have taken their toll and my memory is not as good as it was. An ordinance survey map may reveal all as I think pylons or towers as they became known used to be shown on them. I have an inkling that the GT line went out to a sub at Steventon but as I say the grey matter has faded those details.

[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
Really? Are they embedded in the Southern distribution network rather than the National Grid?[/p][/quote]The main A station sent its power out on the nation grid, first stops being Cowley sub and Bramley(between Reading and Basingstoke). The Bramley line met up with a feed from Fawley (on Southampton water). The l.a.n which the old GT house was connected to went out I believe to local substations. The GT's fed the station on the internal station11kv network. Probably this is traceable on Google Satellite, but as such , no, they didn't go onto the national grid as you would know it. Don't forget their main purpose was to enable a cold start for each main unit should the station get disconnected from the main 400kv grid, or Super Grid, as it was known in those days. The local supply was always a secondary consideration and not designed as their main purpose.[/p][/quote]I should have added that after Cowley the 400 kv line diversified, and two feeds(one pylon group) went down the west country to Severn Springs, the pylon line can be clearly seen at Botley snaking its way westward. The ongoing line from there went down to West Wales, going under the the river Severn very close to the original Severn Bridge. The old CEGB as it was then ran the line through their own tunnel in water cooled tubes. I was given to believe that these were made of a special glass. Now whether that is correct or not I don't know. The other line from Cowley I believe snakes across towards Thame and onwards, but the years have taken their toll and my memory is not as good as it was. An ordinance survey map may reveal all as I think pylons or towers as they became known used to be shown on them. I have an inkling that the GT line went out to a sub at Steventon but as I say the grey matter has faded those details.the wizard

[quote][p][bold]livid99[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]John Lamb[/bold] wrote:
Three concrete structures being professionally demolished and falling at freefall speed in less than a minute?
Hmmmm......now what does that remind me of?[/p][/quote]Let me guess......The Stafford Tower accommodation block at Aston University ?[/p][/quote]Zackly rightJohn Lamb

Could one of the knowledgable posters above please tell me if teh massive amounts of steam that came from these cooling towers could have been used again through the turbines or distribute to heat nearby houses/estates?
It always looks beautiful but a tremendous waste of energy.

Could one of the knowledgable posters above please tell me if teh massive amounts of steam that came from these cooling towers could have been used again through the turbines or distribute to heat nearby houses/estates?
It always looks beautiful but a tremendous waste of energy.John Lamb

It couldn't have been used in the turbines as it's too low pressure once it's been through them.

As regards district heating, or CHP, there is something about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/District_he
ating

I think it works with smaller thermal stations, but Didcot was built in the era when stations were built big to get the efficiency up. That said there are a few schemes in the UK.

It couldn't have been used in the turbines as it's too low pressure once it's been through them.
As regards district heating, or CHP, there is something about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/District_he
ating
I think it works with smaller thermal stations, but Didcot was built in the era when stations were built big to get the efficiency up. That said there are a few schemes in the UK.King Joke

King Joke wrote:
It couldn't have been used in the turbines as it's too low pressure once it's been through them.

As regards district heating, or CHP, there is something about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/District_he

ating

I think it works with smaller thermal stations, but Didcot was built in the era when stations were built big to get the efficiency up. That said there are a few schemes in the UK.

Thanks KJ, that's an interesting read.

[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
It couldn't have been used in the turbines as it's too low pressure once it's been through them.
As regards district heating, or CHP, there is something about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/District_he
ating
I think it works with smaller thermal stations, but Didcot was built in the era when stations were built big to get the efficiency up. That said there are a few schemes in the UK.[/p][/quote]Thanks KJ, that's an interesting read.John Lamb

John Lamb wrote:
Could one of the knowledgable posters above please tell me if teh massive amounts of steam that came from these cooling towers could have been used again through the turbines or distribute to heat nearby houses/estates?
It always looks beautiful but a tremendous waste of energy.

John, please let me explain. The steam you see coming from the towers is NOT the same steam that passes through the turbines.

The steam that passes through the turbines is exactly that, the steam is raised in the boiler, it passes then to the high pressure rotor of the turbine and then passes back to the boiler where it is reheated to again pass through the intermediate section of the turbine and then through the three low pressure sections. After this it then passes through the condenser where the steam is condensed back to water so it can then get pumped back to the boiler and then the process starts over again.

The steam you see coming from the towers is not generated steam, it is the water that passes through the condenser matrix which causes the boiler generated steam to condense back to water. It is much the same as your car, but instead on air passing through your radiator the power station uses water, and the heat from that water is the steam you see coming from the towers.

The generated steam which powers the turbines leaves the super heater part of the boiler and enters the turbine at approx 2,100 psi at around 560*C and after being reheated enters the I/P section at around 560 psi and 540* C if memory serves correctly, both sets of figures are approx.

I recall that to get one turbo generator up to full load its total power consumption would be typically approx 30 MW at full load. So the 25MW g/t's were ample to get each unit running and ready for reconnection to the grid. For those that are unaware the main generator's would have to be synchronized to the grid before they could develop any generated load.

[quote][p][bold]John Lamb[/bold] wrote:
Could one of the knowledgable posters above please tell me if teh massive amounts of steam that came from these cooling towers could have been used again through the turbines or distribute to heat nearby houses/estates?
It always looks beautiful but a tremendous waste of energy.[/p][/quote]John, please let me explain. The steam you see coming from the towers is NOT the same steam that passes through the turbines.
The steam that passes through the turbines is exactly that, the steam is raised in the boiler, it passes then to the high pressure rotor of the turbine and then passes back to the boiler where it is reheated to again pass through the intermediate section of the turbine and then through the three low pressure sections. After this it then passes through the condenser where the steam is condensed back to water so it can then get pumped back to the boiler and then the process starts over again.
The steam you see coming from the towers is not generated steam, it is the water that passes through the condenser matrix which causes the boiler generated steam to condense back to water. It is much the same as your car, but instead on air passing through your radiator the power station uses water, and the heat from that water is the steam you see coming from the towers.
The generated steam which powers the turbines leaves the super heater part of the boiler and enters the turbine at approx 2,100 psi at around 560*C and after being reheated enters the I/P section at around 560 psi and 540* C if memory serves correctly, both sets of figures are approx.
I recall that to get one turbo generator up to full load its total power consumption would be typically approx 30 MW at full load. So the 25MW g/t's were ample to get each unit running and ready for reconnection to the grid. For those that are unaware the main generator's would have to be synchronized to the grid before they could develop any generated load.the wizard

I should have added to the above that that the CW system (cooling water), took its water from the Thames, and the pump house is situated just off the Sutton Courtenay to Appleford road, Basically it follows a very close route to the pylons which leave the station Cowley bound.

The CW pumps in the station circulated the water through the towers and through the condensers of the turbines in a continuous flow while the turbine was running.. There were pumps at the river side to pump water to the station as required when a top up was needed.

Many people asked the question as to why Didcot A became coal and not nuclear powered, the answer was always simple, Cooling and lack of it. Back in the 1960's when all the talk was about Didcot A many assumed that because of its proximity to AERE Harwell it was going to be nuclear power. The population in those days was of course not as well educated as it is nowadays. I've found this which may explain quite a few myths,

I should have added to the above that that the CW system (cooling water), took its water from the Thames, and the pump house is situated just off the Sutton Courtenay to Appleford road, Basically it follows a very close route to the pylons which leave the station Cowley bound.
The CW pumps in the station circulated the water through the towers and through the condensers of the turbines in a continuous flow while the turbine was running.. There were pumps at the river side to pump water to the station as required when a top up was needed.
You may find the following usefull,
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Cooling_tow
er
and for the ongoing operation of the B site,
http://processengine
ering.theengineer.co
.uk/home/pumps-and-v
alves/power-plant-ge
ts-pumps-upgrade/101
8085.article
And this link will no doubt keep many happy reading this for quite a while, accompanied by an excellent photograph of B site low level towers framing the picture of the soon defunct A site
http://www.rwe.com/w
eb/cms/en/2373710/rw
e-npower/about-us/ou
r-businesses/power-g
eneration/didcot/dec
onstruction-of-didco
t-a/
Many people asked the question as to why Didcot A became coal and not nuclear powered, the answer was always simple, Cooling and lack of it. Back in the 1960's when all the talk was about Didcot A many assumed that because of its proximity to AERE Harwell it was going to be nuclear power. The population in those days was of course not as well educated as it is nowadays. I've found this which may explain quite a few myths,
https://www.gov.uk/g
overnment/uploads/sy
stem/uploads/attachm
ent_data/file/291077
/scho0610bsot-e-e.pd
fthe wizard

King Joke wrote:
It couldn't have been used in the turbines as it's too low pressure once it's been through them.

As regards district heating, or CHP, there is something about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/District_he

ating

I think it works with smaller thermal stations, but Didcot was built in the era when stations were built big to get the efficiency up. That said there are a few schemes in the UK.

KJ, the series of stations built in the same era as Didcot were also very necessary as we simply didn't have enough power to fuel the nation.
Didcot was one of many showing a massive investment by the nation in its future.
Stations(of similar concept to Didcot A) that easily come to mind are, Fawley, Pembroke, Aberthaw B, Ratcliffe, Kings North, Littlebrook D, Isle of Grain, Hinkley Point B, Drax, Ferrybridge C,, Cottam, There were others I think some of which have closed, this link may help,

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/List_of_pow
er_stations_in_Engla
nd

[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
It couldn't have been used in the turbines as it's too low pressure once it's been through them.
As regards district heating, or CHP, there is something about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/District_he
ating
I think it works with smaller thermal stations, but Didcot was built in the era when stations were built big to get the efficiency up. That said there are a few schemes in the UK.[/p][/quote]KJ, the series of stations built in the same era as Didcot were also very necessary as we simply didn't have enough power to fuel the nation.
Didcot was one of many showing a massive investment by the nation in its future.
Stations(of similar concept to Didcot A) that easily come to mind are, Fawley, Pembroke, Aberthaw B, Ratcliffe, Kings North, Littlebrook D, Isle of Grain, Hinkley Point B, Drax, Ferrybridge C,, Cottam, There were others I think some of which have closed, this link may help,
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/List_of_pow
er_stations_in_Engla
ndthe wizard

King Joke wrote:
It couldn't have been used in the turbines as it's too low pressure once it's been through them.

As regards district heating, or CHP, there is something about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/District_he

ating

I think it works with smaller thermal stations, but Didcot was built in the era when stations were built big to get the efficiency up. That said there are a few schemes in the UK.

KJ, the series of stations built in the same era as Didcot were also very necessary as we simply didn't have enough power to fuel the nation.
Didcot was one of many showing a massive investment by the nation in its future.
Stations(of similar concept to Didcot A) that easily come to mind are, Fawley, Pembroke, Aberthaw B, Ratcliffe, Kings North, Littlebrook D, Isle of Grain, Hinkley Point B, Drax, Ferrybridge C,, Cottam, There were others I think some of which have closed, this link may help,

http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/List_of_pow

er_stations_in_Engla

nd

I said as much in an earlier post last week, in defence of Didcot.

The three massive Aire Valley stations are in impressive sight. From certain vantage points you can see all three at once. You can certainly see at least one from the top of Holme Moss, many many miles away.

[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]King Joke[/bold] wrote:
It couldn't have been used in the turbines as it's too low pressure once it's been through them.
As regards district heating, or CHP, there is something about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/District_he
ating
I think it works with smaller thermal stations, but Didcot was built in the era when stations were built big to get the efficiency up. That said there are a few schemes in the UK.[/p][/quote]KJ, the series of stations built in the same era as Didcot were also very necessary as we simply didn't have enough power to fuel the nation.
Didcot was one of many showing a massive investment by the nation in its future.
Stations(of similar concept to Didcot A) that easily come to mind are, Fawley, Pembroke, Aberthaw B, Ratcliffe, Kings North, Littlebrook D, Isle of Grain, Hinkley Point B, Drax, Ferrybridge C,, Cottam, There were others I think some of which have closed, this link may help,
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/List_of_pow
er_stations_in_Engla
nd[/p][/quote]I said as much in an earlier post last week, in defence of Didcot.
The three massive Aire Valley stations are in impressive sight. From certain vantage points you can see all three at once. You can certainly see at least one from the top of Holme Moss, many many miles away.King Joke